CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01098.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01098.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01098.a1

May 11, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A security clearance applicant, representing himself, was denied a clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse). The Appeal Board affirmed this denial.

The Board's decision was based on the applicant's failure to assert any harmful error by the Judge in his appeal brief. Additionally, the Board noted that it could not consider new evidence that had not been presented to the Judge during the initial proceedings.

The Board also clarified that claims of financial hardship or a lack of access to classified information are not relevant factors in determining security clearance eligibility. Consequently, the denial of the security clearance was upheld.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

HappliedDrug Involvement and Substance Misuse

Key Rule Quoted

“The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence.”
— Directive ¶ E3.1.29.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 20, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Decision dateMay 11, 2020

Cite For

Affirmation of Adverse Decisions When No Harmful Error Is Alleged
Limitations on the Appeal Board's Review Authority
Relevance of Financial Hardship in Clearance Decisions

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on security concerns under Guideline H and Guideline B. The Appeal Board affirmed the decision as the applicant did not assert any harmful error in the Judge's ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowLeRoy F. Foreman — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline HGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

No specific harmful error alleged — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant's appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the decision because the applicant did not allege any harmful error by the Judge, and the appeal could not consider new evidence not presented during the initial proceedings.

Standard of review applied

No de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline H; Guideline B DIGEST: Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. His brief does contain assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01098.a1 DATE: 05/11/2020

DATE: May 11, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 19-01098 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On June 20, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a decision on the written record. Department Counsel later withdrew the Guideline B allegations. On February 7, 2020, after considering the record, Administrative Judge LeRoy F. Foreman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant’s appeal brief contains no assertion of harmful error on the part of the Judge. His brief does contain assertions that were not presented to the Judge for consideration. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. Applicant also asserts that loss of his security clearance would cause him financial hardship and notes he does not have access to classified information. Those matters, however, are not relevant considerations in evaluating clearance eligibility. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11-10758 at 2 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013)(addressing the adverse impact of a decision) and ISCR Case No. 18-02728 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 12, 2019)(addressing the lack of access to classified information).

The Board does not review a case de novo. The Appeal Board’s authority to review a case is limited to cases in which the appealing party has alleged the Judge committed harmful error. Applicant has not made an allegation of harmful error on the part of the Judge. Therefore, the decision of the Judge is sustainable.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board